POURQUOI CE BLOG, POUR QUI ?


POURQUOI CE BLOG, POUR QUI ?
Ce Blog s'adresse à tous ceux qui sont passionnés par les sciences informatiques , Professionnels,Etudiants,Amateurs ...
Les sujets exposés dans la suite se rapporteront essentiellement sur l'analyse informatique,la programmation,le développement ainsi que à l'architecture IT.
QUI SUIS JE ?
Je suis Kangulungu Lubilanji, Consultant-Freelance sur les technologies .NET,C#,ASP.NET ... Contactez moi pour plus d'informations.

What is the difference between VB.NET and C#?


What is the difference between VB.NET and C#?
Well this is the most debatable issue in .NET community and people treat languages like religion.
It is a subjective matter which language is best. Some like VB.NET’s natural style and some like
professional and terse C# syntaxes. Both use the same framework and speed is very much
equivalents. Still let us list down some major differences between them:-
Advantages VB.NET:-
• Has support for optional parameters that makes COM interoperability much easy.
• With Option Strict off late binding is supported.Legacy VB functionalities can be
used by using Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace.
• Has the WITH construct which is not in C#.
• The VB.NET parts of Visual Studio .NET compiles your code in the background.
While this is considered an advantage for small projects, people creating very
large projects have found that the IDE slows down considerably as the project
gets larger.
Advantages of C#
• XML documentation is generated from source code but this is now been
incorporated in Whidbey.
• Operator overloading which is not in current VB.NET but is been introduced in
Whidbey.
• Use of this statement makes unmanaged resource disposal simple.
• Access to Unsafe code. This allows pointer arithmetic etc, and can improve
performance in some situations. However, it is not to be used lightly, as a lot of
the normal safety of C# is lost (as the name implies).This is the major difference
that you can access unmanaged code in C# and not in VB.NET.

Aucun commentaire: